PDA

View Full Version : Jon Willis dropped from funding in lead-in year to London 2012



nurrycat
-29th July 2011, 08:55
I hear Jon Willis has been dropped from funding in the lead in year to London 2012, despite being UK no1 and coming 3rd in WeisSe Bear, Berlin and getting a rib broken in the process which only healed completely now, so he's been fighting and training hurt all season. If what I hear is correct, I do not understand this decision.

Lee Spiers
-29th July 2011, 09:41
im not suprised with the way the BFA is at the moment..

FEMTO
-29th July 2011, 10:12
I hear Jon Willis has been dropped from funding in the lead in year to London 2012, despite being UK no1 and coming 3rd in WeisSe Bear, Berlin and getting a rib broken in the process which only healed completely now, so he's been fighting and training hurt all season. If what I hear is correct, I do not understand this decision.

Well, I am guessing the decision was based not on domestic results but international results. Unfortunately for Jon they have not been consistently good. Yes, he is No.1 but that is No.1 in the UK and the UK is not exactly the hardest circuit.

Sounds harsh, but It's the reality I guess.

Foilling Around
-29th July 2011, 11:32
If you look at Epee results compared to foil and sabre you will see that it is MUCH more likely that someone will come out of nowhere to win a major event. JW did this at Heidenheim but at foil and sabre they have a much greater chance of following the world rankings. It also happened with Philip Marsh on the juniors.

On that basis, JW is actually a realistic, though distant, prospect for a medal in London. He is in a weapon where it can be done and he has proved he can do it.

Essentially they are writing off the investment that has been made in him so far in away that only a new broom can.

The Driver
-29th July 2011, 11:48
If you look at Epee results compared to foil and sabre you will see that it is MUCH more likely that someone will come out of nowhere to win a major event. JW did this at Heidenheim but at foil and sabre they have a much greater chance of following the world rankings. It also happened with Philip Marsh on the juniors.

On that basis, JW is actually a realistic, though distant, prospect for a medal in London. He is in a weapon where it can be done and he has proved he can do it.

Essentially they are writing off the investment that has been made in him so far in away that only a new broom can.

This is one of the most perspicacious comments I have seen regarding epee for a long time ... and from a foilist too!

Whilst my experience of epee is that of being an observer for the past decade or so, I have nevertheless come to the conclusion that epee results, domestic or foreign, are generally far more random than in the other weapons.

nurrycat
-29th July 2011, 12:25
>>He is in a weapon where it can be done and he has proved he can do it. (etc)
Well I agree and that is what I thought he had been doing. Which is why I do not understand.

>> Yes, he is No.1 but that is No.1 in the UK and the UK is not exactly the hardest circuit.
I have never been on another circuit so I could not comment. It's all we've got, though so we (fencers) are in the position of having to make the best use of tools at our disposal.So twinned with the fact that he has proved he can do it and he is in a weapon where results are random, I do not understand cutting funding to the UK no1 who has gone abroad precisely to up his training, fencing and competing level.

Lefty Foilist
-29th July 2011, 14:28
Which is the worst? Cutting our Number 1 epeeist from funding, or that they have done so one year until the Olympics? Or little under four months until the World Championships. Hardly a morale booster for JW to say the least, though I am utterly confident that he's going to work like a man possessed to show BF how wrong they are/will be to do this.
Our MEs go to comps that have had 250+ for the most part in the entry (correct me if I'm wrong, which as a humble foilist I may well be). It's ridiculously competitive, and has been so well before the Olympic qualifying period began. A little faith please, British Fencing.
I hope that this does not lead to Jon not being afforded a wild-card entry for 2012, should it come to that. Would that be a possible next step should results not please the powers-that-be over the next year?

aao
-29th July 2011, 14:41
I'll reserve judgement until I hear what our new PM has to say with regards future strategy, but like many others here I struggle to understand some of our recent decisions regarding selection and funding this close to the Olympics.
Unfortuantely we have had a system which has let our top fencers down over the past 4 years, and equally we have had fencers who despite this, have had unrivalled access to funding and support who have not been able to live up to their potenial.

Personally I would have backed the fencers we have till the the Olympics, picked the best of them to go using our 8 places (if they haven't qualified by right) and meanwhile have behind the scenes conducted a mjor overhaul of how things will work in the future and which fencers will be supported post Olympics.

Highlander
-29th July 2011, 15:10
Only 1 More year to go and we (the fencing Community collectively) cut Jons Funding
Jon is a great fencer and a masive asset to fencing in this country.
We must Collectively support him
I would like to start a fund and willing to start it with £150
The people making these decisons have got to see that Jon represents not only GB but the fencing community. He is our best and as Paul said "Jon has an outside chance of a medal" and should be funded.

Jeff

jmayle
-29th July 2011, 16:17
This is madness, as have a few things been in the last few months, nothing surprises me at the moment.

Perhaps the PM is boxing clever, let's wait and see, in fact, I can't wait for the explanation of this one.

J

JoJo
-29th July 2011, 16:35
This is madness, as have a few things been in the last few months, nothing surprises me at the moment.

Perhaps the PM is boxing clever, let's wait and see, in fact, I can't wait for the explanation of this one.

J

More likely the PM is out of her depth! Well... I was going to renew my membership but I think I'd do better to give the money to Jon. At least he'd do something useful with it!

nurrycat
-29th July 2011, 17:41
More likely the PM is out of her depth! Well... I was going to renew my membership but I think I'd do better to give the money to Jon. At least he'd do something useful with it!

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

Please don't go! Goodness only knows, I feel like that myself but it just means that there remain fewer people to question questionable actions.

andylymn
-29th July 2011, 18:24
It is always very difficult for NGB's to get it right and satisfy all the people all the time. I know they are striving for rapid development and although the speed has meant some level of communication has been negated perhaps the speed is too quick.

If you look at other organisations that have done this there have always been casualties as the structure grows.

I think the most sensible thing would to be a 4 year cycle based around the Olympics. The olympics is only a self-replicating vehicle for the IOA and very little will benefit the general population of the UK particularly sports. The Olympic legacy...we'll have to wait on that one hopefully it will be a greater version of the benefits to Manchester after the Commonwealth games.

Lots of jingoism etc going on here which any organisation should take with a pinch of salt. In essence once the Olympic band wagon has left and rolls on else where is the time most sports organisations begin to plan for the next 4 year cycle. British Fencing should look towards this format and look long term in its planning.

At present it seems rushed, unstructured and certainly ad hoc. The introduction of a new PM 12 months before the Olympics means a clean broom sweeping clean which will provide a hiatus rather than a smooth transition. Added to this the new structure of the last 12 months + has too many professional career characters who will jump ship if the right offer comes along. The MBA crowd don't live in the real world for the most part and are difficult to accommodate.

Long term strategic and open administration is what is needed. It needs to relate to the body of members and the elite performers alike. We are in a period of flux suffering from the era of non-competitive sport which is good for recreation and long term health plans but has left us bereft of a core of conditioned and committed athletes. This unfortunately, is a matter affecting almost all activities.

I think like most things once there are people in place they need to be given a chance. In the short term it seems disjointed and has little long term focus. In the long term development of the Academy needs to be more rapidly rolled out to the regions and for clubs to benefit from. This needs to be structured and marketed more readily.

At the end of the day BF can only do so much. Clubs don't have to affiliate and alternatives will always be available. Why would someone pay £25 a year when the similar can be offered for £5 via Pentathlon? Membership is another subject but all these impact on BF.

BigPappaBear
-29th July 2011, 18:32
Given Jon is supporting the accademy this year its a special message that BF are sending to the young epeeists this country has.

andylymn
-30th July 2011, 06:11
He was also at the academy last year so shows the level of committment he has to the sport.

fenderstrat
-30th July 2011, 07:28
Given Jon is supporting the accademy this year its a special message that BF are sending to the young epeeists this country has.



this

Foilling Around
-30th July 2011, 10:28
Only 1 More year to go and we (the fencing Community collectively) cut Jons Funding
Jon is a great fencer and a masive asset to fencing in this country.
We must Collectively support him
I would like to start a fund and willing to start it with £150
The people making these decisons have got to see that Jon represents not only GB but the fencing community. He is our best and as Paul said "Jon has an outside chance of a medal" and should be funded.

Jeff

I have to admit that the first time I saw Jon fence was at the Sheffield Open a few years ago. At first I was impressed that he turned up to a minor open, then when I saw him fence a youngster in the final I actually thought he was a bit of a prat! But I got to know him at the academy last year and he and Neil Hutch were brilliant with the youngsters.

I have had one email offer to help and with me and Highlander that takes us to £350 already. Obviously it needs Jon's permission and doing properly to avoid tax problems, but there could be a head of steam building here.

aao
-30th July 2011, 10:53
Can I suggest before people start the excellent process of putting together a support package for Jon, we wait to find out exactly who else is cut from the funding program and what the future program is going to be. While I have huge sympathies for Jon and will help contribute to supporting him, I also think that there are likely to be a few others, who after 3 years of support and promises from the BFA find themselves being cut adrift a year before the Olympics.
While it might not be possible to support them all, I am sure there will be others from epee and the other weapons who also deserve whatever support we can be give them. Once we know what has been done then the membership can decide how best to show its support to the fencers.

Highlander
-30th July 2011, 12:21
Can I suggest before people start the excellent process of putting together a support package for Jon, we wait to find out exactly who else is cut from the funding program and what the future program is going to be. While I have huge sympathies for Jon and will help contribute to supporting him, I also think that there are likely to be a few others, who after 3 years of support and promises from the BFA find themselves being cut adrift a year before the Olympics.
While it might not be possible to support them all, I am sure there will be others from epee and the other weapons who also deserve whatever support we can be give them. Once we know what has been done then the membership can decide how best to show its support to the fencers.

I hear what you are saying Alp and if you were to start up a fund for other fencers I would support it.

This however is a thread about Jon Willis and a fund for Jon Willis
Jeff

aao
-30th July 2011, 12:29
Apologies, of course people should support Jon he has proved in the past that he is more than capable on his day of achieving nearly anything. I didn't mean to distract people from doing this at all, so I apologise if it came over that way.
As I said before I am happy to contribute to help support Jon directly, and in due course, if warranted, I will also look to support others.

Danum
-30th July 2011, 14:57
As long as your support doesn't run to advising him on how to fence!!!!:)

nurrycat
-30th July 2011, 14:57
"I also think that there are likely to be a few others, who after 3 years of support and promises from the BFA find themselves being cut adrift a year before the Olympics. "

"This however is a thread about Jon Willis"


Thanks to both of you. I feel I should be honest and say that if I'd known that other people were going to be a silimar position, my original title for the thread would have been
'Jon Willis + x+ y dropped from funding in lead-in year to London 2012' .

I presume we will actually have GBR fencers at the 2012 Games? Or should I get rid of my tickets?

Sorry everyone. I know sarcasm is low. But really.

M'son
-30th July 2011, 16:17
i think somewhere along the years BFA have forgotten what the olympics are about. Just to remind everyone the guiding principles about the Olympics are based on ;

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."
quote by Baron de Coubertin:

It isn't all about winning medals. I would also like to point out in the BFA Articles in the objectives there is no mention of winning medals, but it mentions promoting and developing the sport.
As this thread is about Jon I would like to say that very few international fencers fit the olympic ideal like Jon. The experiences he will gain in the Olympics will be passed on to the future generations either as coach or as a chef de mission or other. But we know they will be passed on.
The Junior and cadet epeeists today need the enthusiasm, commitment and above all the experience of Jon. Without it they would struggle for 2016 and beyond. Therefore
i feel passionate about getting Jon to the Worlds first and then the Olympics. So count me in for anything

JamesF
-30th July 2011, 18:16
Hear hear. Jon is a role model and the epitomy of the olympic ideal. We will contribute to a fund to see him take his rightful place.

Exgeordielass
-30th July 2011, 18:39
Count me in too. Can't afford much but Johnny deserves our support.

Foilling Around
-30th July 2011, 19:37
This is no sleight on anyone else who loses funding.

Is there anyone out there who knows enough about this type of funding to advise on the best way to go about it?

max
-30th July 2011, 19:53
I'd be happy to contribute. Does anyone know what target we should be aiming at?

fenderstrat
-30th July 2011, 21:50
Count me in for the £100. Good work everyone.

JHC
-30th July 2011, 22:23
I'd be happy to contribute. Does anyone know what target we should be aiming at?

I am also happy to chip in.

I also think it was extremely kind of Jon Willis to post his advice on this forum with regard to an epee weight issue seemingly only a few hours after this funding issue was made public when I personally would be wanting to rant and rave at everyone.

What is happening to this sport?

Stuart_Twick
-31st July 2011, 08:41
Thanks to both of you. I feel I should be honest and say that if I'd known that other people were going to be a silimar position, my original title for the thread would have been 'Jon Willis + x+ y dropped from funding in lead-in year to London 2012'.

That's all well and good, but it would seem that everyone else is only interested in Jon through this thread :) There are other fencers that have lost their funding due to not being seen as a medal prospect, all of them have worked hard and made sacrifices similar to Jon in doing so. Just because their names aren't currently in the title of this thread, doesn't mean their plight should be ignored.


I presume we will actually have GBR fencers at the 2012 Games? Or should I get rid of my tickets?
As it currently stands, as long as you're happy to watch Men's Foil or the Women's Foil Team...

nurrycat
-31st July 2011, 09:37
Quote: That's all well and good, but it would seem that everyone else is only interested in Jon through this thread There are other fencers that have lost their funding due to not being seen as a medal prospect, all of them have worked hard and made sacrifices similar to Jon in doing so. Just because their names aren't currently in the title of this thread, doesn't mean their plight should be ignored.

Look one thread up - aao posted on general plight of GBR fencers yesterday.

WhatEveryoneIsThinking
-31st July 2011, 21:25
Hear hear. Jon is a role model and the epitomy of the olympic ideal. We will contribute to a fund to see him take his rightful place.

Apart from being the epitomy of the Olympic ideal (nice word JamesF) I wonder who will be the next fencer to win 2 world cups and when this will happen?

Can't believe you are considered pass it at the age of 30, what hope for the rest of us!

JamesF
-31st July 2011, 21:50
Ahem. "Epitome". Blush.

WhatEveryoneIsThinking
-1st August 2011, 06:50
Ahem. "Epitome". Blush.

It's spelt with a 'e' - oops that makes to of us then. Hope nobody is reading this thread, maybe we'll get away with it!

And just incase someone on the board is reading this, why has JW not been selected for funding?

riposteinprime
-1st August 2011, 07:18
And just incase someone on the board is reading this, why has JW not been selected for funding?

I'm not on the board - but this might give you a visual approximation: http://www.nahouw.net/rnk_rfn/812/WILLIS_Jonathan.html

WhatEveryoneIsThinking
-1st August 2011, 10:28
Great Post RIP, just remind me, which month did JW break his rib?

Lefty Foilist
-1st August 2011, 11:05
Great Post RIP, just remind me, which month did JW break his rib?

Early last February. http://jonwillis.co.uk/#/blog/4543911637 He reports it on his blog for White Bear, and then the obviously 'Spare rib, anyone?' entry.

riposteinprime
-1st August 2011, 11:48
Great Post RIP, just remind me, which month did JW break his rib?

"It turns out that I have not broken my rib so I must just have some soft tissue damage of sorts and the treatment is simply going to be rest."

wingnutLP: poster has asked me to add that this post is incorrect and JW was injured at the point his rank fell.

Highlander
-1st August 2011, 12:42
I'm not on the board - but this might give you a visual approximation: http://www.nahouw.net/rnk_rfn/812/WILLIS_Jonathan.html

From the Link
23/03/07 Heidenheim 1 32 all results
09/03/07 Stockholm 64 4 all results
03/03/07 Berne 96 0 all results
17/02/07 Tallin 29 4 all results
10/02/07 Lisbonne 136 0 all results
26/01/07 Koweit City 30 8 all results
19/01/07 Doha 108 0 all results
01/10/06 Championnats Du Monde 71 0 all results
03/06/06 Lisbonne 95 0 all results
20/05/06 Tallin 159 0 all results
05/05/06 Legnano 69 0 all results
28/04/06 Heidenheim 102 0 all results
17/03/06 Poitiers 29 4 all results
10/03/06 Stockholm 165 0 all results
04/03/06 Berne 29 4 all results
04/06/05 Lisbonne 74 0 all results
21/05/05 Tallin 85 0 all results
06/05/05 Legnano 114 0 all results
18/03/05 Paris 120 0 all results
11/03/05 Stockholm 114 0 all results
28/02/04 Londres 54 2 all results
08/02/04 Barcelone 30 6 all results
06/10/03 Championnats Du Monde 87 0 all results
02/03/03 Londres 32 4 all results
26/01/03 Tallin 64 2 all results
16/06/02 Tunis 37 2 all results
09/06/02 Stockholm 42 2 all results
03/03/02 London 45 2 all results
27/01/02 Lisbonne 34 2 all results
29/10/01 Championnats Du Monde 32 8 all results

Not great results then he wins the fourth most important competition in the world
That could be the Olympics!!!!!!
He has a track record of beating the best and winning World Cups
How many of the still Funded fencers can say that or could come from a relativly low position and Win a top international Comp?

riposteinprime
-1st August 2011, 13:38
my post earlier was incorrect. I apologies for making incorrect and unfounded assumptions. I have asked the moderators to delete it.

I have always had nothing but support for our British athletes and will contribute to a Jon Willis fund when it is set up.

nurrycat
-1st August 2011, 14:29
"It turns out that I have not broken my rib so I must just have some soft tissue damage of sorts and the treatment is simply going to be rest."

As I understand it, second assessment revealed one rib broken in 2 places.

WhatEveryoneIsThinking
-2nd August 2011, 10:22
Has the new PM or British Fencing given any explication for this decision yet?

So far it's been a list of names who are funded and a load of management speak.

JamesF
-2nd August 2011, 11:01
Much has been made recently about decisions made regarding selection for the European Championships. These decisions were taken by the International Committee and the Performance Manager, and ratified by the Board. There is a process for challenging these decisions, open to all athletes affected by the decisions in question.

The Board, or individual Board members, will never comment on selection decisions.

See http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?15503-British-Fencing-and-the-Fencing-Forum

Ronald Velden
-2nd August 2011, 11:32
Can someone please advise me what is significantly different with Pathway Scheme from previously.

There are still a large number of mens foilists trained by Ziemek at Lansdowne.

Apart from this the only material change is that we now appear to be focussing on a women's foil team most of whom will probably retire post 2012 and are not remotely likely to qualify either as individuals or as a team.

If they are selected we are effectively reducing our other fencers to a maximum of 2-3 deiscretionary places.

Moreover I was led to believe that the BFA in appointing a new Performance Manager were looking more at developing a programme pre Olympics in 2016. Frankly I don't see much evidence in this from selections. Apart from perhaps 5 or 6 mens foilists we are looking at perhaps another three fencers in programme who might still be around and at their peak at that time.

Gav
-2nd August 2011, 11:42
RV:

You could try reading this: http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?15530-British-Fencing-Announces-New-World-Class-Performance-Programme&p=251012&viewfull=1#post251012

D'Artignan
-2nd August 2011, 12:12
My impressions are :-

MF - was pretty much always going to have the most people on the Pathway. A little surprised at one or two inclusions, but not about the amount of fencers included. IC possibly pinning all their hopes on auto qualification form the guys. Development guys funded to keep Podium fencers on their toes, and also with 2020 in mind, rather than 2016.

WF - I suspect there's a feeling that they are not too far off of beating some of the big Nations, and so may be the next best weapon to fund a whole team after MF. If they don't automatically qualify, they may still produce and upset or two along the way and sneak a medal on home turf. Can't see any realistic individual medal hopes, though.

WE - I suspect that CL may be awarded a discretionary place, with a view to 2016, if she doesn't qualify automatically, hence her inclusion.

MS - AOC and JH will be viewed as more for 2016 as well IMO, but with one (or both) being awarded discretionary places, unless they qualify.

WS - Funded as an alternate to WF (or vice versa). IC possibly hoping that inter-weapon rivalry will spur at least one of the teams to automatic qualification?

Not altogether surprised JW or PM aren't funded, although personally I think they should have been given something. Possibly their ages working against them.

Lee Spiers
-2nd August 2011, 12:27
Its a load of dog-egg if you ask me.

sabregran
-3rd August 2011, 12:50
• Too many athletes were being supported who were not in the medal zone or on an upward performance trajectory



- assuming this was the rule applied to exclude Jon, then how does it apply?

He gained FIE ranking points at an event where he had none to lose, so how is that not on an upward performance trajectory?

If there were a full set of youngsters just on the verge of achieving substantial progress at Senior level then I can see a hard decision, but given the limits on the number of athletes in each weapon, it looks to me that a once in a lifetime chance for BF to provide real Olympic experience to a substantial cohort of fencers, is about to be wasted.

I'm completely confused as to what is going on.

munkey
-3rd August 2011, 15:41
An even more striking example of an upward performance trend would be Georgina Usher - no world ranking a year ago, up to no.86 now and no sign of that trend having reached it's end. Except of course, not selected for funding or Worlds (with triple world ranking points available).

allthree
-3rd August 2011, 16:07
Georgina may have had a better European result but a certain lady at BF refused to allow her personal coach accreditation....

Cyranna's Father
-3rd August 2011, 16:09
An even more striking example of an upward performance trend would be Georgina Usher - no world ranking a year ago, up to no.86 now and no sign of that trend having reached it's end. Except of course, not selected for funding or Worlds (with triple world ranking points available).

GU is Scottish is she not - does she have to enter through GB or can the Home Countries enter people individually to the Worlds?
(now may be looking seriously ignorant)

D'Artignan
-3rd August 2011, 16:17
GU is Scottish is she not - does she have to enter through GB or can the Home Countries enter people individually to the Worlds?
(now may be looking seriously ignorant)As none of the HC's are official FIE countries, she would have to enter through the BF, which may prove slightly tricky...

sabregran
-3rd August 2011, 16:39
Yes, I had noted that this applied to Georgina too, and possibly other fencers/teams (I wonder when they will update the FIE rankings to make this clearer) but as this was a thread about Jon, I just used this as an example of how I can't understand what rules they are applying here.

In the interests of transparency, we need a clearer explanation!

... or maybe, I'm missing something

Cyranna's Father
-3rd August 2011, 16:39
As none of the HC's are official FIE countries, she would have to enter through the BF, which may prove slightly tricky...

Perhaps a word with Alex Salmond........ *grins wickedly*

D'Artignan
-3rd August 2011, 17:01
Perhaps a word with Alex Salmond........ *grins wickedly**Sees bait and ignores it*

Oh, look, a nice shiny, but suspiciously pointy-looking fly to eat. I'll bite on that instead...:whistle:

Ronald Velden
-3rd August 2011, 18:02
Gav

I did read it. Its the usual load of blarney. It looks good on paper, but what does it actually deliver, which is fundamentally
different from what we have read before.If we read Piers preamble his goal is not just now any medal in 2012 but a gold!

Head Office is very good at adding to the sport's payrole, issuing paper and directives, but I see frankly very little end product.
Sports Science and conditioning are of course very important, but what are the sport doing about finding a venue to train properly and more importantly recruiting into the system some world class coaches.

munkey
-3rd August 2011, 18:41
Ronald - I believe that Alex Newton has identified the lack of an appropriate training venue as one of the issues that needs to be resolved urgently. I'm sure she's on the case. I'd partially agree with your call for more world class coaches but these coaches need a world class environment, both physically and culturally, to work in. In addition, unless we want to import coaches forever, we need to have promising British coaches working with these guys so they can spread the message at lower levels and ultimately replace them. Without this unified approach the world class coaches you advocate are expensive, have a very limited impact and a very difficult job in trying to retrain fencers who have developed in a fundamentally different system. All the leading European nations (Italy, France, Germany, Russia, etc) grow their own coaches in a culture where the progression through the ranks is much clearer and a change of coach doesn't require the fencer to start from scratch. Until we have a similar system, even if it is initially modelled on another nation's, we are likely to suffer from inconsistency as coaches and coaching styles change.

Gav
-3rd August 2011, 18:50
I'll try not to repeat what munkey has said.

RV there's lots of sensible stuff in there. The puff has all been added to plump out the press release that's all. If you consider what she's saying and other things she's said outside of it then there's much to hope for. We can't say anything about delivery until... well its' had time to deliver or fail. There's been a lot of wasted opportunity (and as a result money) but everyone wants to hound the new person rather than some of the others involved.

Like munkey says, if you don't have the right environment then you are only going to get limited benefit out of world class coaches. But I do agree on that point - we do need more world class coaches. But lets get the infrastructure right too.

Cyranna's Father
-3rd August 2011, 21:50
Some humourless cretin has actually left me Neg Rep over a question I asked in this thread - whoever you are you are a coward!
Sign it or be known for your lack of moral fibre (and zero sense of humour)

Cyranna's Father
-3rd August 2011, 23:31
I thought I was dealing with adults in here - ok, you want it here we go.....

Anonymous Rep is for cowards, spineless bitching without a signature wouldnt feature on for example a Rugby Forum (where your pathetic comments would belong in the girls section except they wouldnt have them either) because real sportsmen/women have the balls (or equivilent) to stand openly for what they believe in.

I bet you people even start to turn your backs on the piste when a lunge comes.....if of course any of you are actually fencers.....I have my doubts as I dont think you have the guts.

jmayle
-4th August 2011, 08:08
I'll try not to repeat what munkey has said.

RV there's lots of sensible stuff in there. The puff has all been added to plump out the press release that's all. If you consider what she's saying and other things she's said outside of it then there's much to hope for. We can't say anything about delivery until... well its' had time to deliver or fail. There's been a lot of wasted opportunity (and as a result money) but everyone wants to hound the new person rather than some of the others involved.

Like munkey says, if you don't have the right environment then you are only going to get limited benefit out of world class coaches. But I do agree on that point - we do need more world class coaches. But lets get the infrastructure right too.

I would agree that some of what they are proposing may work but not this close to 2012 and to detrimentally affect those senior fencers, who have spent, in some cases, years of their lives in preparation for the ultimate goal of their fencing careers is totally disgraceful and uncalled for.

More to the point, they may actually be missing a trick here. The people they have cut loose probably have the most international experience than most of those selected for funding and consequently could on the day bring the silverware home.

The reasoning has been linked to funding but as we know, given the opportunity to fulfil their goals and to finish the job they have started is much, much more important to them than money.

They should at least be given the chance to try. GBR have space to enter them, they will not cost them anything and maybe they will surprise our new PM/Sport UK/Sport England and the Board. The only downside to them doing particularly well would be that they would be in danger of highlighting that the original decisions were indeed wrong and that would not sit well with any of them.

I have made a plea directly for consideration of this, indicated the strength of feeling within the Epee community, both young and old and would encourage the top fencers within our branch of this sport to Appeal the decisions where they feel they can and hopefully, they will see sense and open up those available places to those who deserve to go, both on talent, commitment to the sport and sheer hard work for the last 4 years or more in some cases.

June

The Driver
-4th August 2011, 08:14
Hear, hear. It's a pity that there is no official way that the whole of the Epee community can protest these decisions (I cannot see that any top-ranked epeeist is going to boycott the Nationals - per the Facebook protest group - and risk a loss of points)

jmayle
-4th August 2011, 08:20
Hear, hear. It's a pity that there is no official way that the whole of the Epee community can protest these decisions (I cannot see that any top-ranked epeeist is going to boycott the Nationals - per the Facebook protest group - and risk a loss of points)

Online petition maybe, I know they have been used in the past by folk trying to action against political decisions that directly affect people. It could be circulated via the clubs at ground level/contact lists to ensure that all interested parties get a chance to sign it. Anonimity will go out the window though, although that said, there is strength in numbers.

Need a techy to know how it works though, not one myself, as you may have gathered.

aao
-4th August 2011, 08:37
Hear, hear. It's a pity that there is no official way that the whole of the Epee community can protest these decisions (I cannot see that any top-ranked epeeist is going to boycott the Nationals - per the Facebook protest group - and risk a loss of points)

There is at the AGM. The epee 'community' makes up a significant proportion of the fencing community, till now there has been very little in fencing which has ever angered a voting 'block' enough to be able to act in a co-ordinated fashion. This might be one of those rare times when the majority really do all want the same thing. Also its not just epeeists who are angry, sabreurs and even foilists seem to agree some of the decisions are just plain illogical (e.g. send a full womens foil team to the worlds but don't let them fence in the individuals)

All that is needed to effect change is enough people wanting the same thing and a legal method to achieve that goal.

fenderstrat
-4th August 2011, 08:38
I think you can post a poll on here as a new thread. "Alex Newton should remove the ban on JW representing GB at the Worlds" yes/no. Or other options relating to self-funding etc. Don't know how to do that myself, but no doubt some clever chap or chappess does.

hokers
-4th August 2011, 09:57
The point is that they can easily ignore a relatively small number of people voting on the forum, but they can't ignore a vote of no confidence in the board at the AGM.

The difficulty is that we can't see the inner workings of the discussions regarding selection here, we can't see which directors are protesting vehemently against these selection decisions, so the collective are all demonised together.

fenderstrat
-4th August 2011, 10:28
The point is that they can easily ignore a relatively small number of people voting on the forum, but they can't ignore a vote of no confidence in the board at the AGM.

The difficulty is that we can't see the inner workings of the discussions regarding selection here, we can't see which directors are protesting vehemently against these selection decisions, so the collective are all demonised together.

Yes indeed to para 1. Doesn't help those fencers treated so appallingly now, though. In these days of "sending a message", dreadful phrase and concept though it is, it might be useful to send one now.

As to collective demonisation, that's how it goes unless someone breaks ranks.

aao
-4th August 2011, 10:48
Look at the link I posted about board responsibilities (British Fencing website under strategy http://www.britishfencing.com/governance/strategy/ ) and download the link. That should give you a good idea of which board members are theoretically directly responsible for which decisions.

The ones who made the decisions are the PM, the CEO, and members of the IC/performance group. Therefor following the link upwards should give you a reasonable idea of who is likely to have been in favour on the board at the very least.

WhatEveryoneIsThinking
-5th August 2011, 11:48
Just in the name of balance on this thread, not everyone seems to be in favour of JW. The below was received with some of the red stuff.

"Don't know where to begin - you can't count Iran as a WC, nobody was there"

Foilling Around
-5th August 2011, 15:20
What Jon did was use the World Cup circuit to go to some of the less difficult one, get good results and so better seedings for the others. It works and is an excellent tactical idea. It is the kind of sensible thinking which is needed. Doesn't take away from the value of his results.

hokers
-5th August 2011, 15:26
Same reason why people enter Satellite competitions.

Tubby
-5th August 2011, 15:52
If one discounts Iran can the same not be said for the womens team foil event in Sheffield as not many came? Good luck to the ladies, I don't begrudge them a chance and rules are rules and all that.

Anyway similarly points are points Iran or elsewhere.

I'm still very disappointed nonetheless with the decision. As others have pointed out, the character of the weapon seems to have been overlooked and sport being sport no results are guaranteed and this is magnified by epee. That someone could say that Jon was not even an outside contender for a world or olympic medal has a particular one eyed view of the evidence of their own eye. Whereas a WFT medal, really?

The BFA would have been on more shaky ground if taken to arbitration on the exclusion of the WFT so I can understand that, but to bin Jon, man, thats guaranteeing no success in mens epee.

Mellish
-5th August 2011, 19:02
Like everyone else, I'm struggling to understand how excluding so many fencers will improve UK fencing. Unless of course - it is a punishment for the epeeist community not performing. What a stroke of genius - that will work brilliantly. Don't let any epeeists compete at the Worlds and we will all get so much better.

I seem to remember not bothering to vote for these people - but next time round - this lot are getting the boot.

Fencing@
-5th August 2011, 19:05
I'd be happy to contribute. Does anyone know what target we should be aiming at?

David Gregory's funding requirement to train for the Rio Olympics is currently in excess of £42,200 per annum. Hope that helps

Mellish
-5th August 2011, 19:19
Georgina may have had a better European result but a certain lady at BF refused to allow her personal coach accreditation....
Who did go along in the end to support G, and is one of the UK epee coaches with personal international competitive experience. I'm betting Alex A would have been happy about it, too, trying to keep tabs on so many fights must be close to impossible.

Fencing@
-5th August 2011, 21:00
Firstly, I apologise again for the length of this message. It's an emotive subject to me and one that hit a raw nerve.

I'd like to apologise to all of you that take part in this noble sport. I am not a fencer, never coached or been to a major competition but have always wanted to take up the sport. Alas, chronic back problems prevent me but I still enjoy watching it.

I work as a sports marketing manager for a main sponsor of a young fencer in the North West. Not wishing to break any forum rules, I will name neither but suffice the say that the sponsor has absolutely no involvement in fencing whatsoever.

They have asked me to “guide him” towards making the grade for Rio 2016 and explore all avenues of funding and do all I can to get him to the games. I have extensive working knowledge and personal experience of the way things are done “behind closed doors” and it makes me physcially sick at the games the “pen pushers” play with athletes lives.

I take no sides in this debate but offer some insight as to what is happening and why.

UK Sport laid down the guidelines for further funding towards 2012 back in 2009. These guidelines are designed to increase “participation” and not membership numbers. It is very important you understand its a numbers game and not about the fencer. I can assure you that BF would have been put over a barrel and pushed between a rock and a hard place in order to get what funding they received.

These guidelines are grossly unfair to those outside of the top 5 UK based fencers in any weapon and BF should have read through the document and realised that regardless of how well fencers like JW does, he'll never be able to secure enough funding to train and gain selection. Someone (maybe BF) should have advised JW to return to the UK and live and then go to the european competitions from the UK and not vice versa. Anyone that works in sport will tell you that if you want funding then that's what you MUST do. Why?

Look at rugby union, players that are based “overseas” aren't selected as first choice for their countries. The funding bodies will only fund athletes that are based in the UK and if they choose to ply their trade elsewhere, the xenophobes put paid to their career. Unlike New Zealand, Australia, France and the emerging nations of Argentina and Italy where they encourage their players to play abroad.

So for 2 years, no one has seen the writing on the wall or if they did they chose not to pass the message on. These people would have had a clear understanding of the issues that were going to occur and put a system in place to limit the damage. They didn't and the fall out is the fencers and membership crying.

The blame for this oversight is laid clearly at the feet of BF.

JW's decline in form (though injury or other reasons) was the nail that embedded itself into his coffin. However, in my opinion, had he won all the events and scored maximum points I doubt very much that he would have been selected.

The selection criteria was loaded from the start and regardless of JW's protests, an EGM, AGM or mother's meeting, nothing will change. It can't and that's the truth.

So how does it all work?

In 2009, UK Sport asked all the UK governing bodies to collate “participation numbers”. This meant that if a man walking his dog picked up a sword and jabbed it at the mutt, he counts as one participant. That's an honest truth and fact, the same works for football and basketball. Kick or bounce a ball and its one participant.

The funding bodies then took the best participation sports and funded them. The worst participation sports were left out to dry. For example, Basketball had 2.3 million participants last year but only 10,000 registered members. The best players are all playing overseas and earning a fortune. The governing body is a shambles and top heavy with staff that have no idea about the game. So they lost £1.2 million in funding.

Football had 2.1 million participants but only 11,000 registered members but the team will be funded by the Premier League. So no funding needed there and they'll go to the Olympics.

Fencing had over 340,000 participants but only 8,000 members and so its funding was cut dramatically.

Hockey, shooting, diving, archery etc all had their funding either cut or withdrawn completely.

In order to prevent an outcry, UK Sport will have seconded their staff to work within governing bodies and assist in changing the way they're run and “improve standards”. The new employee is on a hiding to hell and will fail consistently in their endeavours and they know this from the start.

A wise man will bet that after the closing ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, all substantial funding will be cut to sports to cover the shortfall of £billions. The smart athletes and management consultants saw it coming in 2010 and either managed to secure sponsorship or explore other avenues in order to make it to the top.

How could it have been prevented?

There is currently a precedent whereby an individual sports team set up an academy in a minority sport and secured £140,000 per year in non NGO funding. Within 2 years the academy's “graduates” were either playing professionally or competing as students at the highest level stage in the world. After 4 years of banging their heads against a brick wall, they folded the academy and moved away from the sport altogether.

As sponsors, we had an intimate knowledge of how this was done and so as a project, we plan to copy it and implement an Academy in early 2012 for fencers to train, attend school, college or university and train for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week and compete at selected events across the UK and Europe. It will be open to all, regardless of race, gender or socio-economic background.

The main aim will be to produce fencers good enough to represent GB in Rio 2016. We also plan to re-invest 90% of the profits back into the sport for the next generation.

At the moment, we are putting a young fencer with dreams of Rio 2016 through an intensive training regime. His training consists of CV workouts, Pilates, core strengthening and 2 hours a day of on-piste technical training. He does this 5 days a week and we have selected 15 UK and 10 overseas competitions for him to enter.

They'll be some “keyboard warriors” out there pouring scourn on the above and that's fine. I've been involved in sports for over 30 years from grassroots through to international competiton and coaching and I speak only from experience and fact and in that time nothings changed. One lesson most of us learn is to "read the small print".

If you want to make a difference and see a change, like UK Athletics did, then as a collective start a development program yourself. There are a lot of excellent people out there, who have a lot to offer the sport and maybe through the academy they can bring their skills to the table.

Cyranna's Father
-5th August 2011, 21:51
All sounds uncomfortably valid.....

hmmm - 2 points - the first is that the All Blacks are required to play in NZ and historically those playing club outside NZ effectively deselected themselves. Ditto Oz, Argies & Ities have to play abroad to gain regular experince against world class players simply because they dont have them at home.

2nd I am constantly told that fencers mature in their late 20s & early 30s & stats prove this - if you are aiming for 2016 (and lets face it - would you rather your child qualified for 2012 so you could catch womens beach volleyball in docklands or 2016 and Copacabana Beach?) just how "young" is your fencer?

I am currently thinking of keeping mine away from Cadet for an extra year or two as he isnt going to gain anything by being anyone's pincushion and realistically we have 10 years before we need to think about serious ranking (assuming that any epeeist is allowed to qualify by then and there is a BF contingent to qualify for).

A very wise World Ranked epeeist said to me recently that if we were serious we should plan financially now for him to live & fence 24/7 in Hungary for a least a year after Uni and the consequence of that would be to propel him far beyond anything home grown. Sounded like a realistic plan to me.

JamesF
-5th August 2011, 21:56
Perhaps this is known to others - I had not heard of it - but did notice this which makes the participation - funding connection very clearly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/18/funding-cuts-jeremy-hunt

Not sure about the punishing overseas fencers bit though...that rather lacks credibility IMHO

fenderstrat
-6th August 2011, 06:53
I can well believe that there is a degree of xenophobia in the culture. However, I don't see it in the selection rules. If it's used to discriminate against fencers who have gone to Europe to improve their skills and better represent their country, I think I'd place that squarely in the "perverse" category of the appeals procedure.

Fencing@ - many thanks for your insights.

JamesF
-6th August 2011, 07:45
Isnt fencing@ introducing the idea that they might run an independent Academy for fencers aiming at Rio?

If so maybe this could get moved to a different thread, and fencing@ could tell us more. It would be interesting to hear the detail.

How does this proposed private but egalitarian Academy work alongside what the BFA are doing? Who funds it?

jmayle
-6th August 2011, 19:42
Fencing@ has just confirmed what I thought was going on. UK sport are very figures orientated and what he says makes completely logical sense from what I have seen in other sports. The funding issue will be very obvious come post 2012 and I would urge BF to look at the conversion of participates to members in order to address some of the shortfall in funding which will result.

Of course Alex Newton has come from UK Sport as has been publicly acknowledged, which also ties in nicely. That she is not experienced in fencing has left her in a position which may fail. Not sure about JW living in Germany in order to train but that really wouldn't surprise me as it doesn't reflect well upon the training available in the UK, right or wrong, UK Sport will want any success to be home grown for publicity purposes.

At least the crystal ball is becoming clearer and maybe the board are waking up and smelling the roses a little. They seriously need to look at the situation regarding the World Cup again, with special consideration to filling up the available entries in all weapons and both genders to give us the best chance at London 2012.

Fencing@, thank you for your insight.

Your thoughts on academy are interesting, I would be interested to hear how they are received at top table.

June

D'Artignan
-6th August 2011, 20:14
So how does JW's training abroad bar him from receiving funding, yet at least one of the funded WF is/was training in Italy for a number of years? (I am actually genuinely curious about this, and not just stirring the pot to rile people on both sides of the arguement for once)

fenderstrat
-6th August 2011, 20:43
maybe the board are waking up and smelling the roses a little.

Well, they have a chance to regain some lost ground. Whether they will, or merely distance themselves from the decision-making process, remains to be seen. If they do, or the perceived lack of transparency is allowed to persist, they will have missed a genuine to opportunity to show intelligence, common sense and humanity. And will have alienated many of us still further.

From what I understand re. JW's appeal, I would not care to defend their position. And yet, it's possible that relevant facts might have been genuinely overlooked. That might explain the perverse nature of this whole issue, as well as providing an easily understandable reason to change.

And, er, smell the coffee, shirley?

Foilling Around
-6th August 2011, 21:42
Any fencer aiming at 2016 is most likely to be achieving at a good level already. It is just 4 years away. Realistically any fencer qualifying for 2016 must either be in the top 20 or so in the world or go via the zonal qualifier. Alternatively hope that she/he has good enough team mates for the GBR team to be in the top 5 or 6 in the world.

nurrycat
-6th August 2011, 21:48
...Of course Alex Newton has come from UK Sport ...June

And I guess her experience with funding as stated here http://www.trioplusonline.co.uk/
will give addded insight.

Ronald Velden
-6th August 2011, 22:26
Fencing @

Surely the funding streams that you refer to are those received from Sports England who are applying their funding on principles of 'grow,sustain and excel'. Fencing is as you point out a relatively small participation sport and perhaps more importantly only received its first contract some three years ago.

UK Sport is funding on performance related basis ie expectation of international success. Some comparatively small sports
receive quite significant funding, because they have been very successful in producing World class Performances. Fencing has
sadly not been so successful, which is why only two fencers now receive 'podium' funding. Most of the other fencers enjoy
'development grants'.

I believe also that one of the reasons that funding may have been reduced next season is that British Funding front loaded their
funding when last contract was cut albeit that it was subsequently increased when additional funding was sourced. The current
contract ends in 2013, which is the year after Olympics so that BFA may well have decided to hold back some funding, which
might not otherwise be available in final year.

fenderstrat
-7th August 2011, 09:57
Getting back to media res: any coherent suggestions as to why banning JW will help the sport?

madfencer
-7th August 2011, 17:37
Any fencer aiming at 2016 is most likely to be achieving at a good level already. It is just 4 years away. Realistically any fencer qualifying for 2016 must either be in the top 20 or so in the world or go via the zonal qualifier. Alternatively hope that she/he has good enough team mates for the GBR team to be in the top 5 or 6 in the world.

IMHO a lot can happen in 4 years. 2 years away then yes, what you say may be the case.

fenderstrat
-7th August 2011, 22:08
I am absolutely at a loss here. If someone has something to say - say it. And don't hide behind anonymous comments made in reputation. How utterly childish. This is an open forum with a healthy exchange of views, not a schoolyard. I won't post your comment: you can make it openly yourself, with your name on it.

In the meantime, I will say, however, that not selecting a fencer - any fencer - is exactly equivalent to "banning", where the non-selection actively prevents entry to a competition. This is highlighted still further when an athlete is able to fund his or herself. Weasel words, Jesuitical arguments and spin do not hide that from anyone.

Cyranna's Father
-7th August 2011, 23:22
Know what you mean fender.......in fact I started a thread on it which got terminated because the Mods dont like Anon Neg being discussed......depsite the fact that it is clearly the preserve of cowards and others of negligible moral fibre.

Like the man said - if you have something to say "Man-Up"and say it - if it isn't worth putting your name to then it can't be worth saying can it?

One moron even negged me for pointing out how pathetic Anon Neg is..............what an idiot.

fenderstrat
-8th August 2011, 06:48
Heh! Everyone gets that, CF. It's a mod's tradition, I think, and quite amiable. I shall get some too and take it like a man.

Anyway, I don't want to divert this discussion, so may I say that I apologise for my intemperate outburst last night. Not selecting fencers of standing for the worlds is a life-changing decision for some athletes. It needs careful thought from the Board - not just the committee. I think we would all hope to see this reflected in transparency at the very least.

Gav
-8th August 2011, 07:42
Jeez guys do I have to start moving these posts too? Please stick to the topic at hand.

JohnL
-8th August 2011, 12:34
In the meantime, I will say, however, that not selecting a fencer - any fencer - is exactly equivalent to "banning", where the non-selection actively prevents entry to a competition. This is highlighted still further when an athlete is able to fund his or herself. Weasel words, Jesuitical arguments and spin do not hide that from anyone.

Fender

While I don't personally agree with JW not being selected, BF and the selectors (incl PD) do have a right too select/not select fencers for funding and competition. Clearly they have done this with JW on the basis that he does not fit their criteria for either a medal chance in 2012 nor developing further as an international fencer.

Do I think they're wrong, Yes.

Unfortunately, it would appear that they are acting within their remit.

fenderstrat
-8th August 2011, 12:52
Unfortunately, it would appear that they are acting within their remit.

Thanks for that, John. I guess they will have to consider the grounds of the appeal pretty carefully, though.

Foilling Around
-8th August 2011, 19:56
Fender

While I don't personally agree with JW not being selected, BF and the selectors (incl PD) do have a right too select/not select fencers for funding and competition. Clearly they have done this with JW on the basis that he does not fit their criteria for either a medal chance in 2012 nor developing further as an international fencer.

Do I think they're wrong, Yes.

Unfortunately, it would appear that they are acting within their remit.

They only have that right provided that they have provided what they needed to so that funded fencers had the chance to achieve the criteria. They also have to treat everyone equitably.

Lawyers acting on behalf of a number of fencers certainly believe they have a convincing case.

Things may get messy.

Cyranna's Father
-8th August 2011, 20:01
Lawyers acting on behalf of a number of fencers certainly believe they have a convincing case.

Things may get messy.

"May"? I think "are" might be a better word & if lawyers are being involved tehn you mighe add "and expensive"

On this subject - IF the fencers using the lawyers win their case where will the funds come ffom that will have been used to pay the costs to "defend" BF? These lawyers will have been expensive.

I don't think too many people on this forum would agree to the use of money. that could have been better spent on expansion of the sport. coming from BF funds for this action.

fenderstrat
-8th August 2011, 20:18
Things may get messy.

I have no doubt that they will. And I say this without relish - this is about people's lives, the governing body's reputation and the messages we give to young fencers.

Cyranna's Father
-8th August 2011, 20:51
(sorry for free use of typonese in previous post)

Foilling Around
-9th August 2011, 22:12
I have today read Jon's appeal to be allowed to compete in the forthcoming World Championships. He has give me permission the mention this on the forum.

I am no legal expert, though I have some legal experience, but on a common sense basis it makes a lot of sense.

It deals with matters of fact which appear not to have been taken into account in the making of the decision. The perceived manifest unfairness in the decision about who was awarded discretion and the 'perverse' nature of the decision.

All of the points raised on this thread are included, and in more detail and with supporting evidence.

How this will go I do not know. Whether common sense or saving face will prevail.

Jon has been great again this week. More subdued than last year, but who can blame him. He is still however a great role model in his effort and his absolute dedication to the sport.

Cyranna's Father
-9th August 2011, 22:17
I still want to know where the money is coming from to pay for the costs of the action if BF lose to Jon & the other fencers...are they insured?

aao
-9th August 2011, 22:50
I don't believe at this stage the appeals process is a formal legal process, it is I believe an internal BFA appeal, so there should be no, or only minimal costs involved no matter who wins.
I may be wrong though as I haven't seen the appeals that have gone in.

Cyranna's Father
-9th August 2011, 23:12
I understood that a number of people were consulting lawyers - if they win then clearly they will want the expenses for their action wont they?

aao
-9th August 2011, 23:19
well there are rather alot of lawyers in fencing, so conceivably the advice may have been free. I'm guessing here.

Foilling Around
-9th August 2011, 23:37
I think Alp is right at this stage, but assuming there is scope to take it further, should there be a negative outcome for the fencers, then I feel sure that will happen.

This not like the appeal I sent on behalf of my daughter and the JWF team before Belfast. That was a letter from me on headed notepaper! This is drawn up as a legal document essentially stating that BF has failed to apply it's own rules fairly and as such has broken its contract with the fencer.

Now whether that is deemed to be a contact enforceable in the civil courts or whether the court for arbitration in sport deems it a matter within it's jurisdiction I have no idea.

On receiving an appeal such as this, any governing body which does not already have legal opinion on the validity of their decision would be silly if they did not obtain such opinion, should they not wish to allow the appeal

All that needs to be said is for the appeals panel to agree that all the facts were not obtained before the decision was made. The PM reviews the decision and allows Jon to go to the Worlds. He is not asking for funding at this point, but I suppose it does complicate matter if he is allowed to self fund to the worlds when noone else is allowed to.

We are not dealing with small matters here. These are decisions which either affect the culmination of the last 18 years of someone's life or the future direction of people's lives and whether it is worth devoting the next 4 years to striving for Rio. How is anyone going to be confident in doing that if they do not perceive there to be a level playing field.

I also know that there are other appeals in the system which could complicate matters.

Ronald Velden
-10th August 2011, 06:50
I am getting seriously concerned when I read that lawyers are getting involved in sports disputes.

I have refrained from commenting publically on the forum on this matter. The issue for me is not whether one fencer is better or worse than others. The truth is that Britain is unlikely to win a medal. Also on current performance levels our chances of producing automatic qualifiers is very limited.

Only one fencer [Richard Kruse] is close to automatic qualification. The second route is the European Zonal Qualifiers where
Britain is entitled to enter one fencer per weapon. The main question is a] will Britain enter their top ranked fencer in men's
epee. On present evidence that seems unlikely.

The third route are the 8 discretionary places. What seems lost in the discussion is the criteria for selection set by BOA for this
particular route. Fencers have to have been ranked by FIE in top 50 some time since 1st April 2010 or ranked 45 or better on
31st March 2012. I believe that only 6 fencers will meet that requirement namely Kruse,Halsted,Willis,Nicholl,Bond-Williams and Hutchinson. All but one have been selected for World Championships and have been offered podium or discretionary funding.

If the BFA decides not to adopt this discretionary route then the fencers selected must be seen to have potential ie challenging
for medal in 2016, which is presumably why three young fencers have been also selected for Worlds.

The problem for the Selectors and PM in not selecting JW is that he meets current criteria for both European Zonal Qualifier and a Discretionary place. A lot of the women's foilists do not.

Gav
-10th August 2011, 11:37
Rather than running to the courts (very expensive and counter-productive to the fencers, BF and general fencing environment) why not go to Arbitration?



Sport Resolutions (http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/default.asp?section=2&sectionTitle=Welcome+to+the+home+of+sports+dispute +resolution+in+the+UK)

fenderstrat
-10th August 2011, 11:49
Sounds like an excellent idea, Gav.

Ronald Velden
-10th August 2011, 13:03
I think that there is some confusion. An appeal against non selection for World Championships would go to an appeals panel. I
would imagine that this process is quite often used and does not require legal advice.

Obviously an arbitration procedure is used for ' a grievance', which is a separate matter. That would apply to 'unfair treatment'
eg improper selection or funding processes. Clearly here there would be quasi judicial process.

fenderstrat
-10th August 2011, 14:15
I would imagine that this process is quite often used and does not require legal advice.

Lawyers seem to disagree, though. There is a contractual relationship in many cases, which is, of course, subject to civil law.

Cyranna's Father
-10th August 2011, 15:59
Lawyers seem to disagree, though. There is a contractual relationship in many cases, which is, of course, subject to civil law.

It is this aspect that I suspected would be the case and that is what concerned me

Ronald Velden
-10th August 2011, 16:21
fenderstrat

Lawyers will always disagree. That is how they make their money.

However, the facts are that the rules for qualification and selection for World Championships for 2010-11 season have been published on BFA website. An appeal against non selection would only apply if for example

1. A fencer has achieved qualification standard and not been selected.
2. Where the selectors have used their discretion and not followed rankings.
3. Where there are special circumstances for inclusion such as injury or illness.

The only circumstances where I could see a fencer arguing 'breach of contract' for non selection would be if the International or
Weapons Committee had given a fencer dispensation from qualification process. That is frankly most unlikely.

Where the waters become clouded are where the Weapons or International Committee have failed to follow their own rules of selection. The one case where there may be an argument is surprisingly Mens Sabre where they have selected TWO unqualified
fencers. I understood that selectors had only discretion in one case.

This could also arise in mens or womens foil or womens sabre if they select unqualified fencers for individual events who are
members of team.In those circumstances JW might be able to argue that he has received unfair treatment.

fenderstrat
-10th August 2011, 18:03
Lawyers will always disagree. That is how they make their money.

Yes - though a more generous reading of their profession would be that they interpret and argue the law. "Law" taken widely certainly includes the rules of bodies such as BF, which are open to the sort of arguments you yourself have put forward above. Let us hope that wisdom, as well as legal argument, carries the day.

Fencing@
-11th August 2011, 11:45
Hi all,

Thank you for the positive and constructive comments to my post.

I would like to clarify a number of points raised by some of you. I do this not as a supporter of BF nor someone with an axe to grind against them. I speak purely from personal experience and that of my boss.


Cyranna's Father
The official policy of the All Blacks and Aussies is that the players can play anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere during their off season. However, they must remain contracted to a “Home Team” and so go on loan.

The fencer being sponsored is 23 years of age and his name is David Gregory. He reached the GB Rank of 4th until injury curtailed his season and his funding was cut to zero from a sponsor who had gone out of business. The sponsors project is to take David from FIE Ranked 838th and GB 14th into the FIE's Top 100 and GB ranked 1st within the next two years. He is also assisting him to start an academy/coaching school and open a retaill outlet and this is to provide David with something to fall back on in the event he is unable to continue fencing.

Taking a fencer out of competition for 1-2 years is a good option if they are aged 15-16 and will concentrate on their exams.

I have 15 years of experience of sending athletes abroad to further their sporting careers. I can say without a shadow of doubt that in terms of fencing you'd be wasting your time, money and ruining his career. We have plans to send David Gregory to Italy, Germany or Estonia once a month to a club to train and learn from different coaches. £70 air fare, £100 for hotels and he'll get 4-6 hours of one to one coaching. That's cheaper than sending him to a different country, paying for accommodation, coaching, food etc.

“I still want to know where the money is coming from to pay for the costs of the action if BF lose to Jon & the other fencers...are they insured?”
It's a sad fact that people that have no idea about the passions within a top flight athlete are running most governing bodies. Some of them that I've dealt with are “bean counters”, “hand shakers” and “BS Artists” of the highest calibre and if there were a medal for the above GB would be podium contenders.

JW will lose his appeal, annoy BF and his path to stardom will be blotted. UK Sport laid down their dictum in 2009 and BF will have published it in some far gone article that is barely read by anyone, therefore covering their back legally. If it went to court they'll produce the document and use the Top 50 ranking as a get out. I can see it now.

If JW or any fencer is considering suing BF I can almost guarantee BF will hide behind UK Sport and they will be assisted by them to defend themselves. It happened with Hockey, Basketball and Athletics and its a lose-lose situation all the way for the fencer, the sport and most of all the fencing community.

JamesF
“Not sure about the punishing overseas fencers bit though...that rather lacks credibility IMHO”.

I see your thoughts but look at the facts. Those that are “funded” are in the country. My experience tells me that the funding for those overseas will be less than £10,000 per annum and closer to £5,000. That disgusting amount of funding is given not because that's all that can be afforded. It's given as a way of keeping the fencing community happy that BF are being seen to do something for the fencer. The reality is that BF CANNOT draw funding from anywhere in the UK for any fencer NOT residing in the UK. That is the policy of ALL funders in the UK, regardless of sport.

“Isnt fencing@ introducing the idea that they might run an independent Academy for fencers aiming at Rio?. If so maybe this could get moved to a different thread, and fencing@ could tell us more. It would be interesting to hear the detail.”

I'd love to say more about the academy idea and if permitted would discuss it and its full workings with interested parties under a different thread. The 2,500ft2 facility has been found already and discussions regarding accommodation, coaches and training are well under way. Suffice to say that the development process is in a completely different league to what is currently available in the UK and anything BF could offer its fencers. With the right coaches in place, I can say that if it ran like the previous academy we were involved in, it will produce results within 9-12 months and could change the way fencing is developed in the UK.

“How does this proposed private but egalitarian Academy work alongside what the BFA are doing? Who funds it?”
I wish to state that at no point have I made any mention of an “egalitarian Academy” and I respectfully ask you to read the latter portion of my post that states “It will be open to all, regardless of race, gender or socio-economic background.”.

As for funding, there are several considerable pots of funding available that aren't connected to UK Sport, commercially linked and have timelines attached. Their will be a contribution required by the fencer (Human nature says you never value anything that's free) but the main source of funding comes from outside sources. The initial set up is being funded by David Gregory's sponsor and that's in the region of £60,000.


D'Artignan
So how does JW's training abroad bar him from receiving funding, yet at least one of the funded WF is/was training in Italy for a number of years? (I am actually genuinely curious about this, and not just stirring the pot to rile people on both sides of the arguement for once)

BF will be expected by UK Sports to make a “contribution” to the fencer from its coffers. However, the “bean counters” have the view that if you are not in their line of sight, you don't exist. It's been this way for the 20 years I've been involved in sports marketing and management. Basketball players that go to the USA to play in college do so on full scholarships or paid for by their parents. The governing bodies make absolutely no contribution and then bleat when the player comes back to the UK, turns pro, goes to Europe earning £150,000 to £700,000 per season and refuses to play for GB. The same goes for rugby players that transfer from England to Wales and or vice versa.

Foilling Around
Any UK fencer that is in the FIE's Top 20 now will not make it to Rio. I can say with amost absolute certainty they they will burn out by 2016 owing to the poor standard of facilities and funding by 2016. I have seen and heard it all before about athletes peaking and maintaining it and it's all rubbish. The human body can't sustain it. The ones that are emerging from the depths of the sport aged 20+ have a chance to make it to 2016 or 2020, hence the reasoning behind the academy and the elite performance program.

Finally, I have to say that if I were given £200,000 per annum by Beazley, UK Sport etc I would definitely not be fielding short teams to major competitions or cheesing off the fencing community by being secretive, hiding behind meaningless PR spin and not fronting the organisation in a positive manner.

Richard Kruse's mother wrote a piece in the Times recently bemoaning the fact that she can't get tickets to the Olympics to see her son fence. She obviously knows he's been selected already, however she's right, it's disgusting and BF should have ensured that Mr Kruse was given suitable arrangements for his family. That said, Bradley Wiggins is pulling out of one event at the Games and entering another that's being hosted on a day when entry is free so that his family and friends can watch him compete.

Seb Coe and friends should hang their heads in shame.

JamesF
-11th August 2011, 11:55
“How does this proposed private but egalitarian Academy work alongside what the BFA are doing? Who funds it?”

I wish to state that at no point have I made any mention of an “egalitarian Academy” and I respectfully ask you to read the latter portion of my post that states “It will be open to all, regardless of race, gender or socio-economic background.”.




And how do the BFA feel about it, or do you not believe this matters? Are you relying on a transparent and objective selection criteria?

PS by using the term "egalitarian" I was trying to describe "of race, gender or socio-economic background" in one word - not trying to put words in your mouth. If I did so, then sorry!

Lefty Foilist
-11th August 2011, 12:09
I'd love to say more about the academy idea and if permitted would discuss it and its full workings with interested parties under a different thread. The 2,500ft2 facility has been found already and discussions regarding accommodation, coaches and training are well under way. Suffice to say that the development process is in a completely different league to what is currently available in the UK and anything BF could offer its fencers. With the right coaches in place, I can say that if it ran like the previous academy we were involved in, it will produce results within 9-12 months and could change the way fencing is developed in the UK.

Thank you for sharing information about this initiative with us, it sounds really exciting and I hope it becomes successful.

I'm curious about this site you have acquired; will it be equipped with a salle and/or have Olympic size and quality pistes?

Again, best of luck to you and all involved.

tigger
-11th August 2011, 13:07
Within the last 5 years, Louise Bond-Williams lived and fenced in the USA for many years whilst on UK Sport funding. Chris Buxton lived and trained in Hungary for 3 years or so whilst on UK Sport funding. I don't think the foreign residence argument holds any water. If athletes living and training abroad get the qualification criteria then I doubt there's any way they can be 'prevented' or 'banned' from competing at Worlds/Europeans.

There is also absolutely no reason why an athlete in the world top 20 now will not make it to Rio 2016 if they're working in a professional set-up. This theory is not backed by evidence of top fencers, who maintain successful careers over 2,3 or 4 Olympiads. I agree they need holistic support and financial backing to do so, but it's perfectly possible.

Best of luck to DG, and good luck with the academy, we've been trying to do something similar for sabre in Cornwall with the TFC Performance Program.

fenderstrat
-11th August 2011, 14:15
Many thanks for that post fencing@.

On topic, though, I hope I'm not the only one who hasn't given up hope for JW. I have seen the appeal and think it strong, as do many others.

Beyond the procedural issues, however, are issues of common fairness and how the NGB is perceived by its stakeholders. Once again, wisdom and maturity must carry the day here.

JW is an inspirational figure to fencers young and older. It wouldn't be wrong to say that many fencers (my son is one of them) have had their sport and even their lives changed by Jonny.

Fencing@
-11th August 2011, 16:07
PS by using the term "egalitarian" I was trying to describe "of race, gender or socio-economic background" in one word - not trying to put words in your mouth. If I did so, then sorry!

No my apologies, I mis-read it as a political statement and so I stand corrected. Many thanks for your point though.

Fencing@
-11th August 2011, 16:42
And how do the BFA feel about it, or do you not believe this matters? Are you relying on a transparent and objective selection criteria?

I refer to DG's sponsor as TBM so as not to transgress any forum rules. TBM has had an in depth conversation with BF regarding funding etc and their view is that BF's “hamstrung” by red tape and unable to compete at the same level we are talking about. I will endeavour to start a thread regarding the academy and it's idea, principles etc and explain what's going to happen over the coming months.

Fencing@
-11th August 2011, 16:44
The facility is based in Chester is 2,500ft2 has a wood floor and can hold 4 full length (Olympic sizes) pistes and a main piste down the centre (exactly as shown at the European's in Sheffield). There are changing rooms, floodlights, treatment rooms and planning for an aqua suite to hold ice baths etc.

With permission from the moderators, I can elaborate further on a separate thread.

Fencing@
-11th August 2011, 16:50
Many thanks for your comments and I take this time to respond.

On 08-29-2004 06:09 PM, Foilling Around wrote on a US fencing forum;
“We brits seem to have quite a few golfers and other sporting youngsters gaining scholarships to college in the US. There are however few fencers. Louise Bond-Williams is the only one I know of and she was recruited by the coach”.


The thread goes on to explain how scholarships are awarded and how to get them.

There is no way on this planet that Ms Bond-Williams would have been allowed to have officially been allowed to be funded by an NGB while on scholarship in the USA. I and TBM's Chairman have personally been involved in this scholarship process and he is currently still sending athletes to the USA on sports scholarships. If the NCAA were to find out they would immediately suspend her results and the consequences would be dramtic for the Ohio State University. I would suggest that she was funded through her parents and given a “Bursary for equipment” and so retain her amateur status.

With regards to Chris Buxton, he has achieved such a lot in the face of adversity and with no real support from any funding sources. UK Sport provided him with “enough to live in Hungary and cover all my competition costs” but I believe he still had to work to support his personal costs. What an outstanding inspiration to those who wish to reach the top of their sport.

“There is also absolutely no reason why an athlete in the world top 20 now will not make it to Rio 2016 if they're working in a professional set-up. This theory is not backed by evidence of top fencers, who maintain successful careers over 2,3 or 4 Olympiads. I agree they need holistic support and financial backing to do so, but it's perfectly possible”.

It appears you may have mis-read my post. I was referring to UK born fencers. Therefore, according to the FIE's website, there has never been a UK fencer male/female that has maintained a Top 20 ranking for 4-5 years prior to an Olympics.

Getting back on thread, JW should be fighting his corner but through competitions and the causal consequencies of not gaining a position in the World's.

fenderstrat
-11th August 2011, 20:51
Jon Willis dropped from funding in lead-in year to London 2012

I hear Jon Willis has been dropped from funding in the lead in year to London 2012, despite being UK no1 and coming 3rd in WeisSe Bear, Berlin and...
Started by nurrycat, -29th July 2011 09:55

1 2 3 ... 7

Replies: 120
Views: 10,311

Just saying.

Gav
-11th August 2011, 21:09
Eh, to introduce a note of sanity.

That figure would include people who view a thread multiple times (if they've checked this thread say 50 times in a day). They're not reliable stats.

fenderstrat
-11th August 2011, 21:15
Well, of course, Gav. It says "views". Where does that rank in day views in, say, the past couple of weeks, though?

Who checks a thread 50 times a day, btw? Don't you usually see if there are new posts and if there aren't click away somewhere else.? It would be very odd not to.

And what do you mean, "sanity", blast yer?

Gav
-11th August 2011, 21:29
Well, of course, Gav. It says "views". Where does that rank in day views in, say, the past couple of weeks, though?

I actually don't think we have that facility. If those stats are properly recorded then it will be in the DB. I don't have direct access to query it.


Who checks a thread 50 times a day, btw? Don't you usually see if there are new posts and if there aren't click away somewhere else.? It would be very odd not to.

Not me (no really not me), but people DO check threads multiple times. I can see who is checking threads whenever I am looking at them and generally it's the same people. I wouldn't presume to predict people's behaviour - especially on popular topics, you would be amazed at what people do on forums.


And what do you mean, "sanity", blast yer?

I just want to add a note of caution before anyone draws the wrong conclusion... that's all.

fenderstrat
-11th August 2011, 21:34
Without wishing to derail thread, I think this was 10369 last time I checked - and it still is. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think We Should Be Told.

Gav
-11th August 2011, 21:43
Shrug, I could be wrong about the stats even if that's how I understand them to work. Or perhaps it's done by session in which case it gets a bit more complex. Also robots index this site too.

riposteinprime
-11th August 2011, 23:29
I check this thread more thinking there are updates but instead there is just bullshit from fenderstrat, coincidence?

Ronald Velden
-12th August 2011, 06:55
FOILING AROUND AND FENCING@

I think the discussion about sports scholarships in US is a diversion from the issue of JW's lack of funding and non selection for
World Championships.

There are in reality very few Universities in the United States, which offer sports scholarships for fencing. I believe from information supplied to me by Marek Stepien there are perhaps 4. Marek who was until recently epee coach at Notre University
who won this year NCAA and is one of four offers annually 3 full and 3 half scholarships. These are like most other collegiate
sports funded mainly by their American Football Programme.

In the case of Notre Dame they would recruit not just in US but also at the World Junior Championships. Two of fencers recruited in recent times were Zagunnis [womens sabre] and Hurley [womens epee] both of whom were World Champions.
So the opportunities for British Fencers are frankly rather limited.

fenderstrat
-12th August 2011, 07:12
Shrug, I could be wrong about the stats even if that's how I understand them to work. Or perhaps it's done by session in which case it gets a bit more complex. Also robots index this site too.

I'm pointing out that this is an issue which receives a lot of interest, that's all. More than the general levels usually seen here. I'm not quibbling about sampling or absolute numbers.

Foilling Around
-12th August 2011, 21:48
FOILING AROUND AND FENCING@

I think the discussion about sports scholarships in US is a diversion from the issue of JW's lack of funding and non selection for
World Championships.

There are in reality very few Universities in the United States, which offer sports scholarships for fencing. I believe from information supplied to me by Marek Stepien there are perhaps 4. Marek who was until recently epee coach at Notre University
who won this year NCAA and is one of four offers annually 3 full and 3 half scholarships. These are like most other collegiate
sports funded mainly by their American Football Programme.

In the case of Notre Dame they would recruit not just in US but also at the World Junior Championships. Two of fencers recruited in recent times were Zagunnis [womens sabre] and Hurley [womens epee] both of whom were World Champions.
So the opportunities for British Fencers are frankly rather limited.

Hey don't draw me into this!! Fencing@ trawled up a post of mine from 2004 for goodness sake!!

S&C Guy
-12th August 2011, 23:42
The politics of this thread are beyond me, and the various tangents it has taken are definitely well off anything i would be capable or wish to comment on but i will say this much.

In what has been an extremely hard week for Jon i have been able to live and train with him in Nottingham. Although he started the week seeming aa a bit of a loss (who wouldn't be!) he was a consumate professional at all times! On one of the biggest days for him regarding this whole topic he came stright out of a meeting and into the gym with myself and one other S&C Coach and worked up to an almost double bodyweight back squat (160kg, i.e. huge!), followed by dinner and then into a student lecture about what its like to be an elite athlete, where he was making jokes and being positive role model. Each time i trained with him he brought focus and intensity and never once dwelled on what was happening beyond the walls of the gym, this is the definition of being an Elite athlete and therefore a great role model for the academy fencers to see!

My thoughts for him were these; over the next year, no matter what happened, he was going to fence his heart out, train like he never has before and put every ounce of effort into his goal of competing in the olympics. Post 2012 he has always stated he would retire. Right now none of that has changed, he will still train hard, fence hard and put everything he has got into being in London. He's got a huge amount of support from the fencing community it seems, the biggest thing he needs right now is an opportunity to compete in world class comps so as to be kept in the frame for selection. I seriously hope this works out for him, he no doubt deserves it and is training much more intelligently than many other elite athletes i have come across in order to get himself there. No matter what happens in the next year Jonny's going to be showing everyone how much heart he has, (hopefully this does not go unnoticed) and should he be stood on that piste in London it will be because of what he has done for himself not because of governing body objectives and 3 point plans, or any other headline worthy points. After seeing him the last 2 yrs at the academy i can say without doubt you need someone like him in the sport at some level, it would be a shame to lose him now!

Stay strong Jon,

Rhys

oiuyt
-13th August 2011, 04:53
There are in reality very few Universities in the United States, which offer sports scholarships for fencing. I believe from information supplied to me by Marek Stepien there are perhaps 4. Marek who was until recently epee coach at Notre University who won this year NCAA and is one of four offers annually 3 full and 3 half scholarships. These are like most other collegiate sports funded mainly by their American Football Programme.

While there certainly are not huge numbers, the situation is not quite that dire.

There are probably about a dozen schools with fencing scholarships available. Up to 4.5 (men's teams) or 5 (women's teams) full-ride equivalents (tuition, room & board, books, fees) per team. The scholarships can be subdivided to any degree, not just full or half.

-B
Coach of a Division I women's fencing team with scholarships

miker
-13th August 2011, 08:46
The politics of this thread are beyond me, and the various tangents it has taken are definitely well off anything i would be capable or wish to comment on but i will say this much.

...

Stay strong Jon,

Rhys

Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic in such a focussed and positive way.

Spider5
-13th August 2011, 10:15
....and worked up to an almost double bodyweight back squat (160kg, i.e. huge!)

That is massive and wasn't achieved overnight. Don't tell me it was also full range of motion......

S&C Guy
-13th August 2011, 20:23
That is massive and wasn't achieved overnight. Don't tell me it was also full range of motion......

Judge for yourself
Video on my Facebook Page;
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rhys-Ingram-Strength-Performance/235114766509333

And for those Facebookly challenged;
http://youtu.be/4peYwWJ1NrI

*'Facebookly' may not be an actual word!

S&C Guy
-13th August 2011, 20:24
Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic in such a focussed and positive way.


Some of the tangents had begun to baffle me, after a week with Jon i realised this is as much about the human side of the sport as the business side!

Rhys

Cyranna's Father
-13th August 2011, 21:16
hey Guys - another Moron just negged me for talking about rep even though the post was a week ago - cowardly idiot didnt even have the guts to put his name

I thought we were back to adults behaviour in this thread

rory
-13th August 2011, 21:34
Judge for yourself
Video on my Facebook Page;
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rhys-Ingram-Strength-Performance/235114766509333

And for those Facebookly challenged;
http://youtu.be/4peYwWJ1NrI

*'Facebookly' may not be an actual word!

Not full Olympic R.O.M - but pretty deep, and that's a lot of weight to shift.
Nice work Jon.

S&C Guy
-13th August 2011, 21:38
Not full Olympic R.O.M - but pretty deep, and that's a lot of weight to shift.
Nice work Jon.

No, but broke parallel and that gets the job done! Especially as he is not about to enter an olympic lifting comp anytime soon.

Rhys

roadie
-13th August 2011, 21:38
Back to the thread - what Rhys has said transcends politics - it was good to see the young fencers at the national academy respond to JW's generous and ispirational input this week.

Meg_SF
-14th August 2011, 10:13
http://www.britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=352

coach carson
-14th August 2011, 12:21
http://www.britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=352


Extraordinary. Can anyone make sense of this?

TBennett
-14th August 2011, 12:49
This was posted online by BF a while ago and was discussed in a couple of other threads already, no? Awesome squat tho, I don't think my knee can take that kind of load sadly so I won't be matching that anytime soon :P

ChubbyHubby
-14th August 2011, 19:32
Online petition maybe, I know they have been used in the past by folk trying to action against political decisions that directly affect people. It could be circulated via the clubs at ground level/contact lists to ensure that all interested parties get a chance to sign it. Anonimity will go out the window though, although that said, there is strength in numbers.

Need a techy to know how it works though, not one myself, as you may have gathered.

Done before... http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/2009-belfast-junior-world-championships.html

If anyone gets anything going I do have the domain name www.fencing2012.com just sitting there doing nothing... Always had the intention to use it but never had the time.

Foilling Around
-14th August 2011, 20:01
Done before... http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/2009-belfast-junior-world-championships.html

If anyone gets anything going I do have the domain name www.fencing2012.com just sitting there doing nothing... Always had the intention to use it but never had the time.

Maggie Maynard and I have a plan depending on how the Worlds Appeal goes and what Jon wants to do as a result. I also know that Granada TV are interested in the story, so we may very well be in touch. Thanks Dom

Shevyworld
-14th August 2011, 20:07
So up coming folists are fine but not the World Junior Champion at mens Epee.

I can appreciate that any governing body wants to promote its sport in the best light and that they which to extend membership; i also can understand that making a sport more professional, especially a 'minority' sport, again aids in extending membership and public appeal. We have an elected board who are supposed to represent BFA members as a whole but i cant think of anyone who either liked or followed the supposed change to the National Championships that ended in a return to the original format or now, understand the decision to cut funding to fencers who are the highest ranked in the country and ranked inside the world top 50 for 4 consecutive seasons.

As mentioned, making these changes four months out from the World Champs has, for some fencers, JW specifically, wasted not only a large portion of Johns time but the funding that has already been spent up to this point. Alex Newton isn't a fencer and clearly hasn't grasped any notion of the sport and whilst she has a job to do, the BFA's board has a responsibility to its members above anyone else. Its endemic of a lot of sports in which a small minority end up screwing up a sport for the majority of its members.

Cyranna's Father
-14th August 2011, 20:28
I asked before about the selection having the backing of the Board but as previous answers suggest that it wasnt unanimous I will ask a slightly different question now - what percentage of the Board actually backed the selection?

Foilling Around
-14th August 2011, 20:46
But unfortunately BF's paymaster are UKSport and they define the playing field. Alex Newton is a UKSport insider. Now I am unsure whether she is genuinely applying the funding rules in the way she can get away with or whether she is playing it far too safe.

My problem is the reduction of people to mere numbers and "performance trajectories". Basically its a case of "computer says no" so you cant possibly win a medal so you gat no funding and can't even go to competitions.

Alex Newton specifically stated that she had not said that only those on WCPP would be allowed to go to A Grades and World Cups, however she did not say what the criteria would be!!

Foilling Around
-14th August 2011, 21:05
Just for clarification, I spent 90 minutes in a meeting with JW, Piers Matrin and Alex Newton last week discussing his future funding or lack of it. I was simply in there as an independent observer for Jon and so I will not go into any detail about what was said.

It was the first time I had met our new PM and not the nicest of circumstances.

fenderstrat
-15th August 2011, 07:34
My problem is the reduction of people to mere numbers and "performance trajectories". Basically its a case of "computer says no" so you cant possibly win a medal so you gat no funding and can't even go to competitions.

Alex Newton specifically stated that she had not said that only those on WCPP would be allowed to go to A Grades and World Cups, however she did not say what the criteria would be!!

Computers don't say "no", though. They may produce a graph or even - if someone has programmed them appropriately - a probability. I'd be very interested to know what statistical techniques have been employed here, if any beyond squinting at a series of points.

Be delighted to have a heated debate about the misuse use of stats.

Your last sentence there is very interesting, too, Paul.

Foilling Around
-15th August 2011, 07:59
My focus was on other things but I am sure I was told it was a programme used by UKSport which had proved very accurate in predicting performance trajectories in combat sports (though I will be accurate here because the conversation was recorded, I think that is a combination of what I was told and what JW reported to me of a previous conversation).

By looking at the world rankings of the world and Olympic medallists immediately before the events it showed that Jon WILL NOT win a medal in London, not "probably not" or "its a long shot, but will not. His "performance trajectory" shows that he is on downward path so no funding for 2016. I do not think that information is private because it is actually what the criteria on the website state.

My problem is the absolute reliance on statistics without taking into account how those results were obtained and the vagaries of sport. The supposed downward trajectory was achieved against a background poor support from the Pathway over years and this season against injury.

I wish I had had the time to do the research before hand because I am sure I could have come up with an equally convincing statistical case in the opposite direction.

Statistics are NOT facts they are information which is interpreted based on the schema of the interpreter.

Ronald Velden
-15th August 2011, 08:17
Foiling Around

The real issue for me with what is going on at moment is not so much the application of science and technology, but rather poor decision making.

The first matter is that we are going to struggle to produce a single qualifier for the Olympics in 2012 let alone medal. The best
chance of doing so is through European Zonal Qualifiers. That means sending 6 fencers [one in each weapon] to this competition. By excluding a men's epeeist we reduce that option.

Second we are now investing in a Women's Foil Team rather than giving Mens Sabre and Women's Epee an equal opportunity. The question is why. Are the women more talented or have a greater potential? Frankly the answer is a clear no.

There is one final point which has been missed in the debate. Womens Foil and Mens Sabre will be by rotation excluded as team events in the next Olympics. Since there is very little talent coming through the system in womens foil would it
not have been better to invest money in some young individual talent who might make breakthrough in 2016.

nurrycat
-15th August 2011, 08:20
My focus was on other things but I am sure I was told it was a programme used by UKSport which had proved very accurate in predicting performance trajectories in combat sports (though I will be accurate here because the conversation was recorded, I think that is a combination of what I was told and what JW reported to me of a previous conversation).

By looking at the world rankings of the world and Olympic medallists immediately before the events it showed that Jon WILL NOT win a medal in London, not "probably not" or "its a long shot, but will not. His "performance trajectory" shows that he is on downward path so no funding for 2016. I do not think that information is private because it is actually what the criteria on the website state.

I am interested in this programme - Can it do retrospective proof testing? ie Can it predict Heidenheim for JW or the World Championships for PM if tested?

Because if it can be abcolutely relied upon then it will save an awful lot of us (me included) getting out of bed at an unearthly hour to attend a compeitition that we have absolutely no chance of medalling at. I want this programme!

Foiling Around - if I have misunderstood what you have posted - apologies.

Peaseblossom
-15th August 2011, 10:08
Paul, I read your last post and my first thought was why do we bother with the Olympics or other World class competitions then? If UK Sport's computer programme is so reliable, why not input every Olympic fencing competitor's data into it, press the start button and let the machine decide the 6W medal outcomes in a virtual competition?

The lucky winners could be invited to a real life Olympic medals' ceremony with anthems and flowers and photo opportunities and all that to retain a human element. Rolled out over all 'combat sports' as well as fencing* the savings would be massive. :whistle:

(*I can't say that I've ever viewed fencing as a 'combat sport'...)

JackSparrow
-15th August 2011, 10:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY

hokers
-15th August 2011, 10:37
I do not think that information is private because it is actually what the criteria on the website state.


Aha! Can you show me where these criteria are published please Paul? I've been looking for them.

Cheers

Cyranna's Father
-15th August 2011, 10:39
I'm not sure computers understand the concept of growth in human maturity or "Home Advantage" so I am prepared to treat such info generally as "Lies, damned lies & statistics"

wix
-15th August 2011, 11:14
I am interested in this programme - Can it do retrospective proof testing? ie Can it predict Heidenheim for JW or the World Championships for PM if tested?

Because if it can be abcolutely relied upon then it will save an awful lot of us (me included) getting out of bed at an unearthly hour to attend a compeitition that we have absolutely no chance of medalling at. I want this programme!

Foiling Around - if I have misunderstood what you have posted - apologies.

Quite right - if it can predict Jon's victory at Heidenheim or Phil's in Jordan then it would be a very useful tool. HOWEVER, if it can't then it's just another pile of useless junk! Nothing better than the HUMAN brain to weigh up the vagaries of results balanced against injury, the strength of the opposition and lack of proper funding. Maybe the PD should engage hers rather than relying on dubious and, in fencing terms, untested software.

nurrycat
-15th August 2011, 12:17
My focus was on other things but I am sure I was told it was a programme used by UKSport which had proved very accurate in predicting performance trajectories in combat sports (though I will be accurate here because the conversation was recorded, I think that is a combination of what I was told and what JW reported to me of a previous conversation).

I am so impressed that you found time to be an independent observer for Jon under such trying circumstances as well as working all week on the National Academy. It seems such difficult timing and I think you both behaved so honourably. Just thought I'd say that - seems in fencing a lot of bad stuff gets said and not much good.

Best regards and luck for the future

Foilling Around
-15th August 2011, 13:57
Aha! Can you show me where these criteria are published please Paul? I've been looking for them.

Cheers

http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?15530-British-Fencing-Announces-New-World-Class-Performance-Programme&highlight=

This thread - #2 posting.

Remember it is not me who says JW WILL NOT win a medal - it is the PM via the computer.

I suspect the emphasis on this is because the published criteria says "not capable" of winning a medal in 2012.

I readily concede that JW is very much an outside bet to win a medal in 2012, but in ME I would contend that the only person in the world top 150 who CANNOT win on the day is the one who does not enter. Firstly it is the strongest weapon in depth, secondly the character of the weapon.

Anyone who has won Heidenheim and won and medalled in other A grades in the last 4 years is certainly capableof winning medal.

It is a poor show when we are reduced to statistics and semantics.

Who would have thought that I, a dyed in the wool foilist, would have been argue the Epee case!!

roadie
-15th August 2011, 14:09
It's not just an epee case though is it - poor science and poor reasoning can affect decisions for others in future - the wider the critique of these methods, the better.

Foilling Around
-15th August 2011, 15:02
It's not just an epee case though is it - poor science and poor reasoning can affect decisions for others in future - the wider the critique of these methods, the better.

Of course I agree, the last line of my last post was lightening what can be a very heavy subject.

To my mind there is a spurious objectivity in this system. Statistically generated performance trajectories are merely tools which are used to inform human decision making. They can tell you likihoods of certain outcomes, but only in so far as the programmes which generate them have the correct parameters. Even if they are good, they cannot allow for all eventualites and it is ALWAYS a human decision as to whether a certain likihood is worth investing money into. Relying on a computer programme is deflecting responsibility.

hokers
-15th August 2011, 15:15
http://www.fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?15530-British-Fencing-Announces-New-World-Class-Performance-Programme&highlight=
This thread - #2 posting.


You mean this bit?



As a result of the review athletes will be categorised as:
1. Capable of winning a medal in 2012
2. Showing a performance and training trajectory that would deliver a medal in 2016


That was the post I replied to in the first place, but these are hardly "clear and transparent" criteria, more like generalised and ambigous surely?

My interpretation:
Capable of winning a medal should include anyone who has made L8 in any (sufficiently large) A-grade or major championships in the last 5 years.

Performance and training trajectory should mean anyone who has shown an improvement in results over the last two consecutive years L128-L64-L32 for example.

This would give a rather different set of funded fencers than the current set, so clearly there is some reasonable room for interpretation, given the results of the people on the list. No mention of having to train full time, no mention of having to train in a particular location, or anything about age, which certainly look like they are factors at the moment.

Miss_P
-15th August 2011, 15:47
What would the program say with inputs of 8th out of 8 or 0 places from bottom in (consecutive ?) competitions?

Foilling Around
-15th August 2011, 16:39
What would the program say with inputs of 8th out of 8 or 0 places from bottom in (consecutive ?) competitions?

I suspect computer had nothing to do with that. I suspect that PM would say that there are qualifying criteria which she is stuck with from before she was appointed. She has already said that there will be a major review after the World's. I suspect that the WF team will need a remarkable result to convince the PM that they should stay on any type of funding. It may be that one or two individuals convince her that they are young enough and on an upward trajectory for 2016, but that remains to be seen.

But this thread is not for knocking other fencers. It is for supporting JW.

There are other fencers out there who are worthy of consideration and who have put in appeals and who are just as able as fencers who have been given backing.

Cyranna's Father
-15th August 2011, 18:12
why when people mention the PM/PD these days am I getting visions of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in HP & Order of The Phoenix?

fenderstrat
-15th August 2011, 18:14
why when people mention the PM/PD these days am I getting visions of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in HP & Order of The Phoenix?

hahaha!

Hungry Hippo
-16th August 2011, 07:09
why when people mention the PM/PD these days am I getting visions of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in HP & Order of The Phoenix?

I'm getting visions of JW training up lots of v. young fencers, out of site of our own Dolores Umbridge, so they can keep the faith! One day they will rise up.............

Hungry Hippo
-16th August 2011, 07:25
Remember it is not me who says JW WILL NOT win a medal - it is the PM via the computer. ........................ Who would have thought that I, a dyed in the wool foilist, would have been argue the Epee case!!

Have to agree with you about Foil Vs Epee, Paul, but even I think that any computer that predicts that the WFT has more chance of a medal than JW deserves to be unplugged at the mains!

PLS-F
-16th August 2011, 08:10
Hear hear !!

Red
-16th August 2011, 09:36
... There is one final point which has been missed in the debate. Womens Foil and Mens Sabre will be by rotation excluded as team events in the next Olympics...

I'd be prepared to bet rather heavily against MST being excluded. Equality is one thing, but it may need balancing with entertainment value.

Foilling Around
-16th August 2011, 10:17
Have to agree with you about Foil Vs Epee, Paul, but even I think that any computer that predicts that the WFT has more chance of a medal than JW deserves to be unplugged at the mains!

I thought I made it clear that I don't think that the WTF is a computer thing. The PM is far from stupid.

To be fair, I know that she believes she is treating people as individuals, but with a long sought after objectivity. How many times have we complained in the past about subjective selections? She has also expressed her like and respect for Jon in writing. Problems is that simple reliance on figures negates that.

There is the problem that any form of weakness from decision makers these days can be used to question their decisions legally, but a balance needs to be struck.

Cyranna's Father
-16th August 2011, 10:23
*coughs politely before entering*

Paul - I think (hope) you meant WFT....whilst the other might be a relevant shortform in this discussion it's possibly not what you meant to say




*All World Cup entrants will be members of Slytherin House*

TBennett
-16th August 2011, 11:24
I'd be prepared to bet rather heavily against MST being excluded. Equality is one thing, but it may need balancing with entertainment value.

If you had asked me 5 years ago which team events would have been dropped for 2012, I would have bet very heavily against Men's Epee Team being excluded but look how that turned out. It is down to a vote but I really don't think they will deviate from the 'rotation' cycle for the forseeable future.. Anyway, back to the thread..

Ronald Velden
-16th August 2011, 11:36
Red

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I have been advised that the FIE will almost certainly follow the rotation. The next two
weapons are MS and WF. The other 4 weapons have been excluded in last 2 Olympics.

Highlander
-16th August 2011, 13:57
Does anyone know when a decision will be made re JW and others appeals ?

munkey
-16th August 2011, 16:30
Does anyone know when a decision will be made re JW and others appeals ?
According to BF's Appeals Procedures for non-selection for the Worlds, a decision should normally be reached within 10 working days of the appeal being received (although there are a number of "howevers" listed). Appeals have to be made to BFA HQ within 5 days of selection being announced. So decisions should be any day now.

munkey
-16th August 2011, 16:39
Correction: team announced 3rd August. 5 working days to get appeal in plus 10 for appeal to be considered takes it to 24th August i.e. next Wednesday.

Highlander
-16th August 2011, 17:11
Thank you Munkey

Good luck to all that have appealed

Exgeordielass
-16th August 2011, 18:49
Indeed, good luck to all those that have appealed. Fingers crossed for JW

munkey
-16th August 2011, 18:50
Of course there may be a further round of appeals when the full teams for MF, WF and WS are announced in mid September less than a month before the World Championships start on the 8th October (just in case we haven't had enough of debating selection policy and procedures by then...)

hokers
-19th August 2011, 15:06
Wow, what did we miss?

In answer to the anonymous rep I got from here, which asked me if I would prefer Alp to be running the show, I dunno yet. Have to think about that. Not sure I'm the only one pondering that question. But this is how democracy works, right?

aao
-19th August 2011, 16:09
Wow, what did we miss?

In answer to the anonymous rep I got from here, which asked me if I would prefer Alp to be running the show, I dunno yet. Have to think about that. Not sure I'm the only one pondering that question. But this is how democracy works, right?

I've clearly missed something here....? Was there a nomination form which would allow me to stand to be the supreme leader of the BFA??

Anyway back on topic, in my humble opinion

1) There are too many variables in fencing for a computer program to be even a vaguely viable way of evaluating future performance
2) I am 100% JW and the other appeals that have gone in, I cannot think of many justifiable reasons for blocking them from at the very least participating at the Worlds.

A

fenderstrat
-24th August 2011, 08:30
Any news of JW's appeal, anyone?

Cyranna's Father
-26th August 2011, 20:55
any news yet?

aao
-30th August 2011, 09:09
I am hearing on the jungle drums that John's and the girls appeal haven't been successful, but I don't know for certain whether this is actually the case, can anybody confirm??

Cyranna's Father
-30th August 2011, 18:53
that would be a great shame & the justification should make interesting reading

Foilling Around
-30th August 2011, 19:43
That is also my understanding, I also understand that Jon does still want to carry on preparing for the next world cup season in order to try to achieve the qualifying criteria or go to the Zonal Qualifier,

As such Maggie M and I are going to put together a way so that people can make good on their offers of help so that Jon can carry on training in Tauber.

It will most likely be an account set up by Maggie, overseen by me and accessible by Jon to cover his legitimate expenses. People could then transfer money directly into this account or send cheques payable to it.

The advantage of this is that it is not an open ended project. I has an end point of Olympic qualification so no-one is being asked to fund a fencer in the long term.

For me, it is a thank you to Jon, who I only met a year ago, for the fantastic role model he has been at the National Academy summer camp. I am hoping that the parents of the fencers will contribute to say thank you as well. His attitude this summer with all this hanging over him was exemplary.

For information Jon recieved no payment for his role at the Academy and did not ask for any.

It is also recognition that Jon has been hard done to in terms of support over the years. I know a number of other fencers will make the same point, but no-one else has won a major A grade with little of no back up or support.

If at any time Jon feels the need to stop trying to qualify or he is injured and cannot continue then my suggestion is that the fund is converted into a hardship fund to help fund talented young epeeists who find it difficult to afford to go abroad. This adminstered by Jon and Maggie and overseen by me.

This seems neater and easier than trying to work out what proportion of money would go back to each contributor. This would also apply to any surplus at the end of the Olympic campaign.

I know that Maggie is looking at the details at the moment so if anyone has any comments or could offer help please let us know.

Foilling Around
-30th August 2011, 19:46
that would be a great shame & the justification should make interesting reading

Remember that they were claiming descretion rather than a right and I think it would be hard for BF to undermine their new performance manager so soon after appointment.

It is a shame, but it would undermine her authority completely. The case would have to be watertight for BF to do that.

JamesF
-30th August 2011, 19:59
Have you any idea at this stage how much is needed, and over what time? (if this is not private).

It would be so good to make this happen.

fenderstrat
-30th August 2011, 20:03
A truly disgusting decision, then. I am beginning to suspect that anyone who thinks "management" is a true discipline should be wheeled out etc. I'm sending my MBA back with a snotty letter and searching for a (very) basic book on stats I can send to Ms Newton.

TBennett
-30th August 2011, 21:12
I heard the appeal was successful thus far.. Though I will say that until this decision (for better or worse) is officially announced or confirmed by JW on this thread then it is purely Chinese whispers (dangerous game that it is).

aao
-30th August 2011, 21:59
Still no clearer about JW but it looks like I might have been wrong about the Womens Epee team who I believe will now be allowed to compete at the worlds. I really hope this is the case as I would be delighted for them.

Foilling Around
-30th August 2011, 22:25
Hmm! I understood my information was from Jon via Maggie M. I have to say that I hope I am wrong about being allowed to compete at the worlds, but it will not change the financial plea one litle bit.

I also really hope that the WE team can compete. My impression, as stated before, was that the PM felt obliged to allow the WF team to compete as she was bound by the selection rules. It was not necessarily seen as a ringing endorsement of the team, despite some real fight shown at times in Sheffield.

Highlander
-31st August 2011, 15:08
Fingers Crossed

Hope OUR board see sense and send a full team

AELLA
-11th September 2011, 18:43
Boom!

Yet again, 'A man I met in the pub said...' stories abound.

Why do people who don't KNOW things say things, this is very dangerous for everyone concerned, as despite what everyone thinks important people to our sport read this forum, and it makes us all look like a bunch of idiotic people.

I'm really sorry if this offends anyone, but if it does, take a look at yourself, and think before you post in future. If however you think your opinons are more important than the truth, crack on.

Love you all

fenderstrat
-11th September 2011, 20:21
Boom!

Yet again, 'A man I met in the pub said...' stories abound.

Why do people who don't KNOW things say things, this is very dangerous for everyone concerned, as despite what everyone thinks important people to our sport read this forum, and it makes us all look like a bunch of idiotic people.

I'm really sorry if this offends anyone, but if it does, take a look at yourself, and think before you post in future. If however you think your opinons are more important than the truth, crack on.

Love you all

What - we're not allowed to discuss, speculate and share views? This is a forum and I rather think that's what it's for. And, in this particular case, for keeping alive an issue many feel strongly about and allowing all readers to offer their support or otherwise.

There is certainly some manifest idiocy in our sport. We may disagree, though, about its locus.

Cyranna's Father
-11th September 2011, 20:35
Why do people who don't KNOW things say things, this is very dangerous for everyone concerned, as despite what everyone thinks important people to our sport read this forum, and it makes us all look like a bunch of idiotic people.

I'm really sorry if this offends anyone, but if it does, take a look at yourself, and think before you post in future. If however you think your opinons are more important than the truth, crack on.
l

I once got anon neg in here from 3 people for knowing the truth and keeping my mouth shut because to have told the truth would have opened an entire worm factory full of cans - and you think speculation makes people look idiots in here?

Cyranna's Father
-11th September 2011, 21:03
what really makes people look stupid in here is when they leave neg feedback for someone who asks a genuine question, knowing little or nothing about fencing - those people look REALLY stupid

AELLA
-11th September 2011, 21:49
What - we're not allowed to discuss, speculate and share views? This is a forum and I rather think that's what it's for. And, in this particular case, for keeping alive an issue many feel strongly about and allowing all readers to offer their support or otherwise.

There is certainly some manifest idiocy in our sport. We may disagree, though, about its locus.

First of all, If you read the previous posts in the light of the BFA's 'final' selections, they do perhaps seem to be possibly a little wide of the mark.
Secondly, I'm not sure that any focus or locus of focus was mentioned in my post, but you seem to have self selected.
Thirdly and Finally, a forum IS a place to air your views, and opinions, but making announcements when the factual content of them is somewhat less than 100% I think is counterproductive, and in some cases is disingenuous. As this is an open forum, and is the de facto forum for fencing talk in the UK, it’s not just fencers who read it, it’s also funders and potential funders.

Cyranna's Father
-11th September 2011, 22:07
what really makes people look stupid in here is when they leave neg feedback for someone who asks a genuine question, knowing little or nothing about fencing - those people look REALLY stupid

HAHA!! another one falls into the trap - when are you lot going to start ignoring my posts on neg feedback and allowing me to provoke you into giving it? Pavlovs dogs were free-er thinkers (and were probably braver too)!

Cyranna's Father
-11th September 2011, 22:10
Back on topic (apologies to Jon for going OT on his thread btw) - now that he is back in "the fold" is this thread still valid? Or should this door be quietly closed and the world allowed to move on?

Lefty Foilist
-11th September 2011, 22:19
First of all, If you read the previous posts in the light of the BFA's 'final' selections, they do perhaps seem to be possibly a little wide of the mark.
Secondly, I'm not sure that any focus or locus of focus was mentioned in my post, but you seem to have self selected.
Thirdly and Finally, a forum IS a place to air your views, and opinions, but making announcements when the factual content of them is somewhat less than 100% I think is counterproductive, and in some cases is disingenuous. As this is an open forum, and is the de facto forum for fencing talk in the UK, it’s not just fencers who read it, it’s also funders and potential funders.

On your first point: brilliant use of hindsight to put down arguments written in the context of the time where the information made available at this point in time was not then available at the time of the original posts.
On your third point: well we might as well shut down ALL internet forums in this country for ALL sports, and let's do news website comment sections as well because the amount of comments posted that are right-wing, racist, discriminatory, disingenuous and arguments based on half-truths and barely credible evidence. (I could go on). Going by your perspective (from my perspective of your recent comment), we ought to shut down such forums as potential foreign investors might read them and get a bit upset.

Oh bugger, I've just fed the troll now. Better get the Norwegians in!

AELLA
-12th September 2011, 09:52
On your first point: brilliant use of hindsight to put down arguments written in the context of the time where the information made available at this point in time was not then available at the time of the original posts.
I think my point was that posts were made saying that people knew things where they were at best guessing - Had they said, "I think it's unlikely that BFA will make changes, and that in my opinion, despite the appeals, the selections will not be added to" that's fine, but people saying "I know stuff that is privileged info, and want to be the one who breaks the news to improve my reputation amongst a few people who I may or may not know" I think is ridiculous!


On your third point: well we might as well shut down ALL internet forums in this country for ALL sports, and let's do news website comment sections as well because the amount of comments posted that are right-wing, racist, discriminatory, disingenuous and arguments based on half-truths and barely credible evidence. (I could go on). Going by your perspective (from my perspective of your recent comment), we ought to shut down such forums as potential foreign investors might read them and get a bit upset.
I'm not sure I said that, I believe that you are engaging in reductio ad absurdum. What I will say is that there are a number of athletes who lost funding due to their facebook entries, and our sport suffers from a low level of external investment compared to other sports with a similar potential for medals and TV exposure.

Is it possible that this thread could either return to the point, or be divided into ‘the point of the thread’ and ‘the rest of the shizzle’ and deposit that into the ‘off topic’ area and we can continue this further.

fenderstrat
-12th September 2011, 11:53
IWhat I will say is that there are a number of athletes who lost funding due to their facebook entries.

Is that true, btw?

fenderstrat
-12th September 2011, 12:03
I see from another place that open discussion is frowned upon by some. And that, perhaps characteristically, those who do so like to keep their comments anonymous.

I think they're wrong. But if the forum hosts disagree and would like me and others to keep schtum I'm happy to abide by their rules and recommendations.

pavski
-12th September 2011, 12:44
Dissent will not be TOLERATED!

Andy
-12th September 2011, 14:03
Is that true, btw?

I can't believe that you doubt the forum!

AELLA
-12th September 2011, 14:14
What I will say is that there are a number of athletes who lost funding due to their facebook entries...


Is that true, btw?

Sorry - I didn't quite make myself clear, as when I read that back, it could be read in a way that suggested that Fencers lost funding in this way. I am not privy to whether that happened or not.
But there are many cases where UK Sport have withdrawn funding, and have threatened to withdraw funding from sports, where their elite funded athletes have countless pictures of drunken episodes on facebook.


I can't believe that you doubt the forum!

Indeed, we all have an opinion on that.

hokers
-12th September 2011, 14:38
yet again, 'a man i met in the pub said...' stories abound.

Why do people who don't know things say things, this is very dangerous for everyone concerned...


is it possible that this thread could either return to the point

Think you might have to take a *little* responsibility for this one yourself...

fenderstrat
-12th September 2011, 15:40
What I will say is that there are a number of athletes who lost funding due to their facebook entries


countless pictures of drunken episodes on facebook.

Fair enough, AELLA. That sounds a far cry from the discussion of team selection and the use of stats packages for predicting performance, though.

dtd
-12th September 2011, 19:48
AELLA For someone who came in to this thread complaining about rumours and half-truths, I think you have made the biggest blunder of all by spouting off about elite athletes losing their funding due to drunken pictures on facebook. Where is your brain? Did you fail to notice that this thread is concerned with Jon Willis losing his funding.

You should hang your head in shame. You owe Jon Willis a major apology.

D'Artignan
-12th September 2011, 20:19
I think that's a tad harsh on AELLA, to be honest. Yes, the point wasn't made particularly well, but the assertation was at least in context, and also factually correct. The failure to clarify that he/she (sorry, I'm not aware of AELLA's real life identity or gender) was not referring to fencers could easily have been an oversight. I saw no particular reason to react like that, dtd.